So this came to the school I work in....

[ooherrmissus14]

I was expecting it to be promoting the transgender movement but was quite surprised it wasn't!! Interesting to see this perspective being shared with schools x

I'm a little confused. The contents of the letter are sound, and cover exactly the same points that FWR spends aeons discussing. What exactly is the problem with the letter (which is what the OP posted)? Why should it immediately be put in the bin?

(I'll answer my own question : it's because the word 'Bible' appears on their website.)

"This group believes that science teachers need to teach that Darwin’s theory of evolution isn’t scientific truth."

@RealityNotEssentialism You realise that the concepts of theory and truth are different, right? Your sentence perfectly exemplifies the unscientific attitudes that this group justifiably objects to.

@herewegonumberthree

And the Board of Directors, Council of Reference and Scientific Panel are exclusively made up of men.... guessing women aren't allowed to have an 'expert' opinion

Do you assume that about all groups consisting of men only?

@NiceGerbil you say:

"Seems like they are trying to use??? around gender stuff as an in? As people who adhere to the Bible in a traditional way though I'd put money on them a. Having a 'separate but equal' so called view and be red hot keen on men being men and women keeping their mouths shut and making the sandwiches. That's just a guess obviously."

I assume by 'a' you mean the view that men and women are "different but equal"? Could you explain why you disagree with that statement? I don't see anything objectionable about it.

(In any case, you admit you're just guessing at what other beliefs this group may hold, which is not a very scientific approach...)

@Aesopfable

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/

“Conclusions:
Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.”

I'm amazed with that. All the narrative is that the adoption of the desired presentation relieves suicidal tendencies. The 'live daughter rather than a dead son' as a fait accompli.

We haven't received this, but did get an email from the authority telling us that they were sent out unauthorised to schools and at are absolutely NOT to be used!

@HBGKC

I'm a little confused. The contents of the letter are sound, and cover exactly the same points that FWR spends aeons discussing. What exactly is the problem with the letter (which is what the OP posted)? Why should it immediately be put in the bin?

(I'll answer my own question : it's because the word 'Bible' appears on their website.)

"This group believes that science teachers need to teach that Darwin’s theory of evolution isn’t scientific truth."

@RealityNotEssentialism You realise that the concepts of theory and truth are different, right? Your sentence perfectly exemplifies the unscientific attitudes that this group justifiably objects to.

It's a good point tbf. Without seeing the dvd... my suspicion would be that, unlike most FWR posters, the claim "we have no further agenda" would seem to be in direct contradiction with the fact of who has written the letter and made clear their agenda.

@MeringueCloud Christian ones, yes. Having spent way too much of my life in evangelical circles.

I would still be interested to hear what's on the dvd from anyone that received it.

Trans activists on twitter have also been talking about this.

@Manderleyagain there's a 4 minute trailer for the dvd on their website.

[quote herewegonumberthree]@MeringueCloud Christian ones, yes. Having spent way too much of my life in evangelical circles. [/quote]
That's not a fair assumption to make.

I'm in an area with a lot of more extreme strands of Christianity, including one group who are essentially removed from the outside world.

I also know plenty of more mainstream evangelical Christians.

As I talk to people and read stuff. I know EXACTLY what different but equal news means when mentioned by a hardcore Christian person or group. I also know EXACTLY what is being aimed for when the the words scientists use and make sense, are kind of bastardised to say well it's just s theory. So it's on an equal footing with any other theories or ideas no matter how unsupported they are.

So no I'm not getting into this.

There's plenty all over the net covering all of this and more.

I think this originally came from Lily Maynard, who re-worked the graphics - it's been doing the rounds for a while.

So: NiceGerbils knows some mainstream Evangelical Christians.

You live near some more extreme strands of Christianity.

You 'talk to people and read stuff.'

Therefore we should take your word for it that when Christians use words, they don't mean what the words mean, they mean something else. Something bad.

(Though let's not forget - YOU are the person who used the phrase 'different but equal'; not 'them'.)

You put words into other individual's & groups' mouths, and then argue against what you've asserted (with zero evidence) that they say and mean, branding them 'bonkers/extreme/hardcore' in the process.

Nope, I have no interest in getting into this with you, either.

(Also - try replacing the word 'Christian' in your post with 'Muslim' and see how it sounds.)

@MeringueCloud give me one legitimately good reason for any organisation in 2020 to have zero women involved in their leadership.

Am I wrong to say that fundamentalism goes hand in hand with literal interpretation of the Bible therefore people who are professing to take literally the verses around creation will also take literally those around women keeping quiet in church?

The vice chairman for this organisation is a director of the Evangelical Times which repeatedly and continually publishes articles reinforcing Paul's teachings about women not being in leadership. I am sure there are people who take a literal view of creation and still would appoint women to their leadership team but this org is demonstrating zero evidence of this

@MeringueCloudgive me one legitimately good reason for any organisation in 2020 to have zero women involved in their leadership

No women applied. The men that applied were more qualified/interviewed better than the women that applied.

Am I wrong to say that fundamentalism goes hand in hand with literal interpretation of the Bible therefore people who are professing to take literally the verses around creation will also take literally those around women keeping quiet in church?
I am not sure how you define fundamentalism, but I think you think it's something negative. Are you talking about the verses about Creation in Genesis? That's in the old Testament and is an account of how the world was made. When you talk about the bit about women keep quiet in church I think you probably mean Paul's letter to the Corinthian church. Some people feel that that letter was aimed just at the Corinthian women, some people feel it applies to all women.

@MeringueCloud I've had a brief look at some of the men listed in the leadership for this organisation- totally accepting your challenge not to make blind assumptions I have tried to do a bit of due diligence- I am afraid I cannot find a shred of evidence that any of them support women in leadership. Aside from the vice chairman's affiliations, the pastors on the council of reference belong to churches where the whole leadership team is all men and many of them are affiliated to evangelical organisations that still subscribe to the view that women should not be in leadership. These are conservative Christians with fundamentalist views (not got a problem with believing in intelligent design but I have a huge problem with people who wouldn't let a woman lead) so unless anyone can show me any evidence to the contrary, I stand by the view that they are clearly not allowing women to take an expert opinion in this. They've picked the trans issue in which their views have common ground with more mainstream views and using this to get sympathy for their cause when if you delved into what other views they hold, there would actually be some pretty insidious stuff.

Unless you agree with organisations blocking women from leading and all sorts of other conservative extremist views and have taken a conscious decision to still support them, then I think it is naive to assume these views aren't also held by the group

In the trailer of their dvd, various female doctors/scientists are interviewed - more women than men, is my impression.

You could argue that that's not the same as promoting them to positions of leadership. I suppose; but @herewegonumberthree your statement " I cannot find a shred of evidence that any of them support women in leadership" feels a little bit like demanding evidence that someone is anti-racist, rather than accepting their assertion that they are not, or simply giving them the benefit of the doubt.

@HBGKC I think sadly it is different having them on the video compared to being in a decision making capacity. Like when Mark Driscoll preached and 'let' his wife speak and had to qualify it to say 'but she's not preaching' and the article in the Evangelical Times that talks about what a shame it is that women can't be in leadership, but not to worry that there are other roles for them in the church. There is a subtle difference drawn within the circles. Women being in the video is basically just the men using them as props to agree with their views whilst they are still not allowing them to make any governing decisions or be in a position where the males will be accountable to the females.

Imagine if a mainstream organisation outside the church had a purely male, white leadership team and carried on as though that was normal and acceptable in these times. Yes, I would expect some kind of justification and people would ask for one. On my earlier point I think it would be unjustifiable. But they haven't even put a statement like 'sorry we're all men but we aren't anti women, just haven't had many female applicants' but as I said, I can't see anything like that or any evidence at all that it isn't deliberate. On comparing it to being anti- racist, it would be indicative of some sort of discrimination if in a workplace there were no people of colour in the leadership team and yes I would demand evidence to the contrary just as the law expects the public sector to create opportunities for people from minority groups

"it would be indicative of some sort of discrimination if in a workplace there were no people of colour in the leadership team"

Surely you cannot stand by this statement unqualified? Would it not depend on geographical location, local demographics, size of workplace, size of leadership team, number and type of roles available within it..?

And I can't give them the benefit of the doubt as these views within evangelical circles is endemic and have been used to oppress women, gay people and other minority groups. Any evangelical organisation that isn't overtly standing against this is complicit.

@HBGKC I'm more aware of the public sector in which the public sector equality duty means taking measures to ensure all groups are represented even in environments where those groups are a proportionate minority.

In other sectors, most places manage to at least engage in tokenism as the lowest form of participation

humanism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/BHA-Press-Release-Truth-in-Science.pdf

Creationists

(...applying your comment with reference to sex as well as race.)

@HBGKC Not every organisation will achieve diversity but most will strive towards it as it's a legal requirement in public orgs and common decency otherwise- the equality and diversity agenda and representation is huge- if somewhere is not achieving diversity then they have even more reason to have proactive policies to advance it. And if they didn't then yes I would say that's discriminatory. Like 'ah we've got no minority representation but who cares as there's not many minority people round here anyway. Only a few of our customers are black so no need to bother making sure we have any people of colour on our board' that should never happen! They should be saying 'we aren't representative of all our clients, what can we do about it'

Apologies for the cross-post. I don't want to derail the thread into a discussion of Critical Race Theory, positive discrimination etc etc.

My original theoretical point remains: does it matter what another group thinks about XYZ if you can agree and ally and campaign with them regarding ABC? If so, why?

(Genuine question. I'm interested in the increasingly puritanical demand for ideological purity in all sorts of areas of societal discourse.)